AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Nagaresh, J
The 1st petitioner herein is the owner in possession of 10.35 Ares of property comprised in Re-Survey No. 560/11 of Chittur Village. The 2nd petitioner is the owner in possession of 10.35 Ares of property comprised in Re-Survey No. 560/11-1 of Chittur Village. The petitioners obtained the property on the basis of Partition Deed No.736/1973 of SRO, Chittur and thereafter Jenmam right of the property was received as per Purchase Certificate No.1770/1978 of the Land Tribunal, Chittur. On 09.07.1999, a Settlement Deed was executed by virtue of document bearing No.1943/1999 of SRO, Chittur and thereafter, they are in possession of the properties. The properties are clearly demarcated and well within definite boundaries. There are valuable trees in the property. On the eastern side of the property, there is a public chal and on the eastern side of the chal, the property of the 6th respondent is situated. The Civil Courts have come to the conclusion that the 6th respondent had no right or possession over the plaint schedule property, contend the petitions.
The petitioners state that the 6th respondent has no right over the properties belonging to the petitioners. The 6th respondent also does not have any right over the trees standing in the property. But, the petitioners are not permitted to cut and remove the trees on account of the obstruction by the 6th respondent. The trees are to be cut and removed so as to enable the petitioners to enjoy the property. It is therefore necessary that the 2nd respondent is directed to afford adequate and necessary protection to the petitioners to cut and remove the standing trees in their property, with the concurrence of the 5th respondent if found necessary. Unless and until adequate police protection is afforded, the petitioners will be obstructed by the 6th respondent as has been their experience, urge the petitioners.
Though notice was served on the 6th respondent, there is no representation for the 6th respondent.
Government Pleader submitted that since 1997 onwards there is a civil case existing between the petitioners and the 6th respondent. The 6th respondent filed O.S.No.381/1997. An order was passed by the Munsiff's Court in favour of the petitioners. The 6th respondent filed an appeal against the order of the Munsiff's Court, Chittur. The District Court and High Court rejected the appeals so preferred. Subsequently, the petitioners have approached the Munsiff's Court against the 6th respondent, alleging that he has refused to accept the Court order not to obstruct to cut and remove the tree belonging to the petitioners.
Going through the pleadings made in the writ petition and the arguments raised at the Bar, it is evident that the petitioners are seeking police protection to cut and remove trees on the boundaries of their land, which are causing threat to the travellers and passengers using the nearby road. Taking into consideration the said fact, I am of the opinion that protection need to be given to the petitioners to cut and remove the trees dangerously standing. It is stated that Chittur Village, where the property is situated, is covered by the Kerala Protection of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Area Act, 1986. If any permission/licence is required for cutting trees statutorily, the petitioners shall obtain the same.
The writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent-Sub Inspector of Police to give protection to the petitioners to cut and remove the trees standing in their compound, subject to other statutory requirements if any.